Agricultural Science Digest
Chief EditorArvind kumar
Print ISSN 0253-150X
Online ISSN 0976-0547
NAAS Rating 4.75
Chief EditorArvind kumar
Print ISSN 0253-150X
Online ISSN 0976-0547
NAAS Rating 4.75
ARCC reviewers ensure that all the articles published in ARCC Journals follow the majority of the publication standards. This process not only requires in-depth scientific knowledge about a certain subject but also a lot of devotion to patiently deal with it.
At Agricultural Research Communication Centre (ARCC) double-blind peer-review process has been followed for the last 50 years to maintain the quality of the journals and our reviewers ensure this by devoting quality time and valuable feedback to each manuscript submitted.
Therefore, ARCC journals give importance to the role of reviewers as it is the only method of ensuring that the article contains the desired and useful information in it.
ARCC Journals is having Esteemed Reviewer’s panel of more than 10000 senior scale professionals from all around the globe.
Going through the manuscripts to create an extensive and unbiased report is mainly taken care of by the reviewer.
Sometimes, a reviewer has to distinguish the manuscripts also so that any kind of incorrect research can be avoided at the time of publishing.
This is of huge importance to the scientific community and authorship. At ARCC journals, a reviewer not only works closely with the author and the editor but also with other reviewers who work on the same research or manuscripts.
As making sure that all the factors are working in proper coordination is of utmost importance, peer-reviewing requires proper time and systematic procedures of reviewing.
Suitable comments and suggestions from the reviewers make the article even more defined and useful for the readers.
As a prestigious publisher of academic research, ARCC Journals is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality in the manuscripts we publish. To achieve this goal, we rely on the expertise of our reviewers, who play a critical role in ensuring the accuracy, relevance, and validity of the research we publish. The following policies govern the role of reviewers in ARCC Journals:
Reviewer selection: ARCC Journals selects reviewers based on their expertise in the relevant field of study, as well as their experience and reputation as researchers and scholars. We strive to ensure that our reviewers are fair, impartial, and committed to upholding the highest standards of quality in academic research.
Reviewer responsibilities: Reviewers for ARCC Journals are responsible for thoroughly evaluating manuscripts assigned in a timely and professional manner. This includes evaluating the research methodology, assessing the clarity and organization of the manuscript, identifying potential biases and limitations, and providing constructive feedback to authors. Reviewers are also expected to maintain confidentiality and to avoid conflicts of interest or bias in their evaluation of manuscripts.
Reviewer feedback: ARCC Journals expects reviewers to provide constructive feedback to authors that is specific, actionable, and aimed at improving the quality of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to provide feedback that is respectful, professional, and objective, and to avoid personal attacks or unconstructive criticism.
Reviewer recognition: ARCC Journals recognizes the important contributions of our reviewers and acknowledges their efforts by listing them on the journal's website and in other relevant publications. Reviewers may also be invited to participate in editorial activities or to serve on the journal's editorial board.
Reviewer feedback evaluation: ARCC Journals evaluates reviewer feedback to ensure that it meets the highest standards of quality and professionalism. We take reviewer feedback seriously and use it to improve the quality of our manuscripts and our overall publishing process.
Reviewers are not required to be specialists in every element of a manuscript’s content, but they should accept a project only if they have the proper experience to provide an authoritative evaluation.
Timeliness and Responsiveness: ARCC Journals expects reviewers to provide their feedback within a reasonable timeframe, typically within 2-4 weeks of receiving the manuscript. Reviewers are encouraged to communicate any issues or concerns about their ability to meet this timeline with the journal's editorial team. Reviewers are responsible for acting swiftly, complying with the instructions for a review’s completion, and submitting it promptly and properly. Failure to follow this affects the review process severely so every effort must be made to finish the review within the time frame.
Competence: Reviewers who understand that their specialty on the subject of the manuscript is limited are responsible to make their level of capabilities clear to the editor.
Reviewer conflicts of interest: The review system should be created to lessen the actual or assumed bias on the part of the reviewer.
If reviewers have any interest that might affect the objective review in any way, they should either reject the role of the reviewer or reveal their conflict of interest to the editor and take suggestions on how to address it in the best way possible.
Editors and Reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission or review process if they found the following conflicts:
Presenting the facts in a review in the wrong manner.
Delaying the review process unnecessarily.
Criticizing a competitor’s work unfairly.
Breaching the secrecy of the review.
Suggesting changes that appear to support the reviewer’s own work.
Misusing confidential information for personal motives.
Stealing ideas or texts from a manuscript under review.
Including personal criticism of the author.
Failing to reveal a conflict of interest that would have shunned the reviewer from the procedure.
Reporting Misconduct or Ethical Concerns: If reviewers suspect research misconduct or have concerns about the ethical conduct of a study, they should inform the editorial office immediately.
Impartiality and Integrity: The comments and conclusions of the Reviewer should be based on an objective and unbiased assessment of the studies be they personal or professional.
All comments by the reviewers should be based exclusively on the scientific merit of the paper, its authenticity, and quality of writing along with the relevance to the journal’s mission and scope, irrespective of the ethnic origin, race, religion, sex, or citizenship of the authors.
Reviewer training and support: ARCC Journals provides training and support to our reviewers to help them fulfill their responsibilities effectively. This may include providing guidance on best practices for manuscript evaluation, offering resources and tools to facilitate the review process, or providing access to training or mentorship opportunities.
Reviewer feedback confidentiality: ARCC Journals maintains strict confidentiality regarding the contents of manuscripts and the review process. We expect our reviewers to maintain the same level of confidentiality, The material which is under review must not be shared or talked about by anyone outside the process of review unless necessary and given consent by the editor. Sample correspondence related to this topic is available on the ARCC website.
The work submitted for peer review is a highly privileged communication that should be kept at discretion, being mindful to protect the author’s identity and work.
The role of reviewers in ARCC Journals is critical to maintaining the highest standards of quality in academic research. We rely on our reviewers to help us ensure the accuracy, relevance, and validity of the research we publish, and we are committed to supporting our reviewers in their important work.
The main job of the reviewers is to go through the research papers submitted by authors for publishing.
Their prime goal is to find inconsistencies in those papers and give their valuable opinion in an article. After a thorough assessment of the manuscripts, they have to report the changes or enhancements (if any) to the author in a written report.
Their feedback must be unbiased and devoid of any conflict of interest and any unethical demerits found must be reported to the author with proper and enough recommendations.
The peer reviewers must make sure that their suggestions aren’t personal, informal, or unprofessional. As well as the reports must be given as constructively as possible.
In the process of reviewing, two major factors must be taken into account – the language and confidentiality of the article.
While most authors meditate on their scholarly knowledge, the secrecy of their work is of prime importance. Any illegal use or the revelation of manuscripts is not permitted. It’s equal to the breach of confidence that the author puts in the reviewer.
Secondly, if the researched papers based on any scientific theory aren’t properly drafted, the readers will find it very difficult to read.
The role of the peer-reviewer suggests the responsibility the reviewer holds toward the editor.
The editor is an important decision-maker in the publication so the reviewer must make sure to facilitate him fully in writing great articles.
As millions of research are submitted every day, time is the biggest key in journal publication. Timely notification from the reviewer to the editor helps the editor a lot in completing the article on time.
Various reputed institutions all over India have set a clear set of guidelines for journal publication. These guidelines help the reviewer to report immediately to the editor in case there is a financial conflict of interest.
And the directives from these guidelines advise the reviewer to give constructive and insightful views. Even if there is a critique in the reviewing documents, it should be informative and helpful.
This can be achieved by providing extra information to the editor along with the proposed references. This helps the journal editor create high-quality articles for the readers.
Thus it’s important to base the recommendations on scientific merits while remaining within the scope of publication guidelines.
The editors also take into consideration the number of manuscripts sent to a reviewer by their journal so as not to overwhelm any one expert.
ARCC Journals find it useful to thank reviewers for their dedicated volunteer efforts. This may take the form of the reviewers that are listed in the journal on a regular basis.
Reviewers are important to us; ARCC aims to reward them for the work they do.
ARCC put on reviewers’ personalized profile page on the website.
If a reviewer has completed at least two reviews, they become a ‘Recognized Reviewer’ and ARCC awards them with a 'Reviewer Excellence Certificate’.
If a reviewer has completed at least ten reviews in two years, they become an ‘Outstanding Reviewer’ and 'recommended for Executive Editorial Board Member or Editorial Board Member’ for ARCC Journals.
To Sum it up:
Ensures the standards of the scientific process by being a part of the peer review system.
Maintains the quality of the journal by identifying invalid research.
Fulfils a sense of responsibility to the community and their expertise in research.
Develops relationships with esteemed colleagues and their journals, and assist them in getting more opportunities to join an editorial board.
Prevents unethical practices by identifying plagiarism, research fraud, and other issues.